If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

And I thought his control was his main selling point when he was drafted.

That and a few other things, great change, fastball that sits between 91-94 and two decent breaking pitches, slider and a curve.

The problem now is his fastball is usually in the 86-89 range, not as accurate and also there isn't as much separation between his fastball and change. His curve and slider are ok, but not great. They looked a lot better when he had the big fastball and change that was nearly 10 mph slower.

Its hard to blame the Padres on this one, no one reallly knew about his shoulder strain. He looked fine in 2004, but he mainly succeded by changing speeds. Maybe he can improve this year, but I like Bush's chances more than his....and that isn't a lot for either.

Comment

Good post, but I still disagree with you on a few things. Stauffer has become a bust. He did pitch well in 2004, but he has been pounded ever since. Last year for example he had a 5.53 ERA and allowed 199 hits in only 153 innings pitched. He's not a great strikeout pitcher (89) either. The big problem with Stauffer is he just isn't the pitcher that the Padres picked in 2003, he never regained his fastball from his shoulder problems.

He did pitch well in his one outing in San Diego last year, but I really think that was more of a fluke. He rarely pitched that well in Portland and I would take quite a few Padre pitching prospects over him. Its really hard to see him as becoming a MLB pitcher, he just doesn't miss enough bats.

As for Killian, he is young, but he's also posted a .605 career minor league OPS in three minor league seasons. Its hard too see a big league future with those numbers. He was at best a throw in in the Young-Gonzo trade, the Padres really just didn't have any room for him to play.

I agree with you on Bush, but in my opinion its still nearly as big a risk taking college players as high school guys - especially in the later rounds. Take a look at the college players that the Padres drafted in 2003 in the first 10 rounds - Tim Stauffer, Daniel Moore, Colt Morton, Peter Stonard, Clark Girardeau, Dirk Hayhurst, Matt Lauderdale and Fernando Valuenzuela Jr.

Only Stauffer and Morton are still with the team, and Stauffer has made it to the big leagues. Moore, Girardeau, Lauderdale and Valuenzuela Jr. have been released. Hayhurst may still be in the organization, but is little more than a "4A" player and Stonard simply quit after one year. So most college guys aren't going to make the majors either or contribute on the big league level.

You make some excellent points...but...we'll have to agree to disagree about Stauffer. Yes, he's obviously not what they had hoped for with the #4 pick in the draft, but I still feel he can be an above average 5 starter. I understand that if you look only at his AAA numbers you would be put off (His WHIP sucks)...but unless someone who knows for sure can tell me that he was using his time in the minors to put up the best possible stats and NOT to work on things his big league time showed he needed to improve (like pitching to contact instead of nibbling) then I still feel he is in the learning process.

Also, when you draft 50 players every year (not counting foreign-born players and FA's) - Then of course you are going to have a long, long list of players that never make it or fizzle out. (This includes HS players as well)

I guess what I was trying to say is that if you compare the success rate of early HS draft picks to early college draft picks...you have a better chance of getting a contributor from the college player...but...the successful HS player generally ends up with a higher ceiling.

In my opinion, for a better and deeper farm system, you should draft college early and HS talent later (again, you must pony up and pay them the premium it will cost). Couple this with a good effort in Latin America and you should always have a well stocked farm system...although it may never be ranks by the "experts" as one of the best becasue the value youth above all.

Comment

You make some excellent points...but...we'll have to agree to disagree about Stauffer. Yes, he's obviously not what they had hoped for with the #4 pick in the draft, but I still feel he can be an above average 5 starter. I understand that if you look only at his AAA numbers you would be put off (His WHIP sucks)...but unless someone who knows for sure can tell me that he was using his time in the minors to put up the best possible stats and NOT to work on things his big league time showed he needed to improve (like pitching to contact instead of nibbling) then I still feel he is in the learning process.

Also, when you draft 50 players every year (not counting foreign-born players and FA's) - Then of course you are going to have a long, long list of players that never make it or fizzle out. (This includes HS players as well)

I guess what I was trying to say is that if you compare the success rate of early HS draft picks to early college draft picks...you have a better chance of getting a contributor from the college player...but...the successful HS player generally ends up with a higher ceiling.

In my opinion, for a better and deeper farm system, you should draft college early and HS talent later (again, you must pony up and pay them the premium it will cost). Couple this with a good effort in Latin America and you should always have a well stocked farm system...although it may never be ranks by the "experts" as one of the best becasue the value youth above all.

On Stauffer I guess we will both have to monitor how he does this year. He did pitch well in AA in 2004, but his recent numbers just have not been very good. I think his problems have to do with the fact that without the big fastball he has to be a little too perfect and if the ball doesn't go exactly where he planned, its going to get hammered. I think he's always tried to do his best, but he just doesn't have an MLB plus pitch anymore.

I would tend to lean towards the college guys in the early rounds [1-3] too, but if there was a quality high school player - as this year when the Padres took Burke and Hunter - I would take a shot at them. My point was as many college guys overall fail as the high school players. I think the key is to have, as you wrote, a mixed system instead of being dogmatic on only high school or only college players.

Comment

but unless someone who knows for sure can tell me that he was using his time in the minors to put up the best possible stats and NOT to work on things his big league time showed he needed to improve (like pitching to contact instead of nibbling) then I still feel he is in the learning process.

Comment

I think his success had more to do with a combination of the Dodgers really not playing well against us and the fact that they hadn't scouted him and it was sort of a surprise start.

while the pads do/did pwnt the dodgers, i don't fully buy the surprise start thing. dodgers faced him a couple of time in 05, and it wouldn't surprise me if las vegas faced him last year prior to that start. info was somewhere. could they have been better prepared? sure. should they have been that surprised? not really.